Defense of Marriage Amendment Update
I recently emailed State Sen. Tarryl Clark about the Defense of Marriage Amendment. Here’s my email:
Sen. Clark, I just got your mailing. Thanks for updating us on what you’ll be working on. While I agree that education funding and property tax relief should be priorities, the list that you included doesn’t reflect the important issue of putting the Definition of Marriage Amendment on the November ballot.
I’m familiar with the fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional in their Baker v. Nelson ruling in 1971. That isn’t insignificant but let’s face the fact that judges have ignored starei decisis and overturned precedents.
That’s why it’s vitally important to pass a constitutional amendment so that judges can’t overturn prior rulings. Your vocal and active support for getting the Definition of Marriage Amendment on the November ballot is critical in getting that accomplished.
Gary Gross
St. Cloud, MNLet Freedom Ring blog
http://therevolutionwillbeblogged.blogspot.com/
Here’s Sen. Clark’s response:
Dear Gary:
Thank you for your email concerning your views on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. People of faith in our district are divided on this issue. I have heard from constituents supporting and opposing the proposed amendment.
As you may know, for many years I have worked with the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy, and the broader faith community through the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition. Together, we have worked to promote issues of justice. I look forward to continued partnerships with the MCC and other religious organizations. In addition, in my personal life I have worked with my congregation and other local congregations to make a difference in Central Minnesota.
On this issue, a constitutional amendment seems redundant and unnecessary. Minnesota already has a law defining marriage, and the definition of marriage between a man and a woman has been upheld in the Minnesota Supreme Court. Given this, a constitutional amendment adds nothing to our laws.
I fear some are using the proposed amendment as a “scare tactic” to distract us from needed legislative actions. Minnesota needs to take strong action to improve our schools, provide affordable health care, and renovate our roads and transportation systems.My highest priority as a legislator is to protect senior citizens and families from the stressors which can tear them apart. I believe we can best support them by having good schools, good jobs, and a good health care system. It is my intention to work on these issues, rather than an unnecessary constitutional amendment.
I hope you agree with these priorities. I appreciate your willingness to contact me with your thoughts. Please feel free to visit me at the Capitol, call or email with any concerns you have on any issue.
Sincerely,
Tarryl L. Clark
Minnesota State Senator
District 15
First, I’d like to thank Sen. Clark for responding so quickly. She gets an A for that. Red flags immediately went up as I started reading Sen. Clark’s response. Let’s go through them:
People of faith in our district are divided on this issue. I have heard from constituents supporting and opposing the proposed amendment.
I don’t doubt that Sen. Clark has heard from people on both sides of this issue. As for her saying that people are divided on this, I believe that, too, to a certain extent. It isn’t that there aren’t people trying to be heard. It isn’t even that there might be a split. The reason I’m an advocate for this amendment is so that the people have a say in this issue. Which brings me to the second red flag:
On this issue, a constitutional amendment seems redundant and unnecessary. Minnesota already has a law defining marriage, and the definition of marriage between a man and a woman has been upheld in the Minnesota Supreme Court. Given this, a constitutional amendment adds nothing to our laws.
I heartily disagree, Sen. Clark. The Minnesota Supreme Court can overturn that law in a heartbeat. All it takes is a single ruling. By amending our state’s constitution to define this issue, We the People will take it out of judges’ perview. Which is precisely our goal. The entire idea is to give people the right to determine this issue.
Sen. Clark makes it sound like the legislature would be amending the Constitution. It isn’t. All that advocates like me ask is for the Minnesota State Senate to vote up or down on putting the amendment on the November ballot.
I fear some are using the proposed amendment as a “scare tactic” to distract us from needed legislative actions. Minnesota needs to take strong action to improve our schools, provide affordable health care, and renovate our roads and transportation systems.
Some are using amendment to see where our legislators are on this important issue. The biggest reason for the amendment is because we don’t want another Massachusetts where a handful of liberal social policy-setters told the legislature what laws they had to pass. Talk about chutzpah. I doubt they’d like it if the legislature told them how to rule on cases.
The next biggest reason is to see if our legislators simply want to do dodge this issue or accept the challenge on this. If debating the single biggest social issue of the day isn’t worthy of consideration by the full Senate, then that’s an indicator of what Democrats think of social issues.
The truth is that Democrats don’t want this on the ballot because traditional-thinking voters will flock to the polls to take this issue out of the judiciary’s realm.
Given this, a constitutional amendment adds nothing to our laws.
Actually, Senator, it would subtract something from our laws and add to Minnesota’s Constitution, which is what we want. As I’ve said before, I’ve never seen a state Supreme Court overturn a constitutional amendment.
Based on the actions of judges over the past decade, I’m eager to get as many things out of judges’ discretion as possible.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing